Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-6569
Counsel for Appellant
Paul J. Fishman
George S. Leone
John F. Romano [ARGUED]
Office of United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Suite 700
Newark, NJ 07102-2535
Counsel for Appellee
______
OPINION OF THE COURT
______
VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Salvatore Stabile (Stabile)
pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1344, waived a jury trial and stipulated to facts for a
bench trial with regard to three counts of receipt of child
pornography and one count of possession of child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B). The
District Court found Stabile guilty of these child pornography
charges. Stabile retained the right to appeal the District
Courts ruling on his suppression motions. All charges were
consolidated for sentencing, and the District Court sentenced
Stabile to concurrent sentences of 78 months imprisonment
on each count. Stabile appeals the District Courts denial of
his motion to suppress as well as the sentence the District
Court imposed.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Stabile cites United States v. King, 604 F.3d 125 (3d Cir.
2010).
20
21
22
23
24
25
The officers seized the hard drives on July 24, 2006, but the
state search warrant was not issued until October 19, 2006.
26
27
28
29
30
Kazvid folder; (2) that the plain view doctrine should not
apply to the file names found in the Kazvid folder; and (3)
that the inevitable discovery and independent source doctrines
do not apply and therefore this evidence must be suppressed.
The Government contends that the plain view doctrine applies
not only to the names of the files in the Kazvid folder but also
to all the contents of those files. For the reasons that follow,
we determine that Detective Vanadia properly opened that
Kazvid folder; that the names of the files in that folder were
in plain view; and that although under the facts of this case
the plain view doctrine may not apply to the contents of those
files, the independent source and inevitable discovery
doctrines apply to the contents of the files, thereby removing
any need for suppression. Therefore, we will affirm the
District Courts decision.
III.A.4.a. View of Files in Kazvid Folder
The first issue is whether, pursuant to the state search
warrant to search for evidence of financial crimes, Detective
Vanadia properly viewed the files in the Kazvid folder. The
District Court found that Vanadia properly opened this file
because he reasonably believed that it could contain evidence
of financial crimes.
Stabile contends that Detective Vanadia stumbled
upon the videos in the Kazvid folder by failing to limit the
scope of his search to evidence of financial crimes.
Appellants Br. 29. According to Stabile, Vanadias decision
to open Kazvid was an unreasonably overbroad search, not
limited to evidence of financial crimes, and a pretext for
searching for child pornography. See Appellants Br. 29-30,
37 n.19. We disagree.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
19
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
III.B. Sentencing
Stabile also claims that his sentence is unreasonable.
Because Stabile knowingly and voluntarily waived his right
to appeal, and because nothing compels us to disregard this
waiver, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction to review the
merits of this claim.24
Prior to sentencing, Stabile agreed to a set of non-jury
trial stipulations, which included a waiver of the right to
challenge [on appeal] the sentence imposed . . . if that
sentence falls within or below the Guidelines range that
results from the agreed total Guidelines offense level of 26.25
Appx. at A-74. Stabile was sentenced to 78 months
imprisonment, the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range.
Moreover, our review of the record provides no indication
that Stabiles waiver was anything less than knowing and
voluntary. Waivers of appellate rights, if entered into
knowingly and voluntarily, are valid. See United States v.
Khattak, 273 F.3d 557, 562 (3d Cir. 2001).
Nonetheless, Stabile urges us to reach his claims by
arguing that a constitutional concern and a procedural defect
allegedly committed by the District Court amount to a
24
52
53
54
55